Upvote
0
One Day with the RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS USM.
- Thread starter LSXPhotog
- Start date
My 200-800 just arrived. Here are a few first shots on the R7 for acid test. All shots handheld and 100% crop.
This is at 800mm about 15 ft ISO 2500, f/10, 1/250s
800mm, f/9, ISO 6400, 1/250s. This shot would have been too dark for the 800 f/11 at ISO 6400.
With 1.4 TC. 1120mm, ISO 2000, f/14, 1/400s
With 1.4 TC. 1120mm, f/14, ISO 6400, 1/320s. Lighting was very bad, so missed eye focus and some motion blur.
So far, it is at least as sharp as the 800/11, much faster to focus, and stabilizer seems to have more range. The extra 2/3 stop is very helpful for the spot where my hummers hang out, but f/9 is close to the limit for getting the whole bird in focus. If I have the light, I will still likely go to f/11. Still good detail with the 1.4x, so that is very encouraging.
This is at 800mm about 15 ft ISO 2500, f/10, 1/250s
800mm, f/9, ISO 6400, 1/250s. This shot would have been too dark for the 800 f/11 at ISO 6400.
With 1.4 TC. 1120mm, ISO 2000, f/14, 1/400s
With 1.4 TC. 1120mm, f/14, ISO 6400, 1/320s. Lighting was very bad, so missed eye focus and some motion blur.
So far, it is at least as sharp as the 800/11, much faster to focus, and stabilizer seems to have more range. The extra 2/3 stop is very helpful for the spot where my hummers hang out, but f/9 is close to the limit for getting the whole bird in focus. If I have the light, I will still likely go to f/11. Still good detail with the 1.4x, so that is very encouraging.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
They live here year round. Well fed and they don't have to deal with all the traffic migrating through California.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
LR enhance at about 45, a little dehaze, and a little texture, followed by a light pass with Topaz Denoise. I find that with either LR enhance or PL prime XD that if I don't turn up slider very far and follow with Topaz Denoise, the result has more detail and is more natural looking.
Upvote
0
Lovely shots. Do you have any with the RF 100-500mm on the R7 for comparison?
Upvote
0
Thanks. I don't have the RF 100-500. I have the EF 100-400 L II and it is very good up to 560mm, but just a little soft with the 2x. I have some feeder shots with that lens, but not with the R7, and nothing in the brush as that really needs the 800 reach as I lean over the back railing to get as close as I can. Compared to the 800 f/11, the zoom lets me get closer and it is at least as sharp if not a bit sharper up close. The air was good yesterday and I tried a test shot at the power tower a mile away that I use for reference and the result was comparable to what I get from the EF 800 f/5.6 L on a good air day. That was very encouraging. I find that MTF charts and the like don't have enough dimensions to tell the whole story. Measuring MTF 50 at 30 LPPm tells you very little about MTF 40 and with modern sensors and software and decent light, MTF 20 can be fully recovered. A perfect example is mirror lenses. They typically have good high frequency response, but lousy mid-band response due to the center obstruction. Unprocessed images look very dull, but the bandpass of the Texture control in LR is just about right to recover that lost mid-band and I have found that I can process mirror lens images in a way that, except for the bokeh, no one would ever suspect came from a Cat. The site doesn't seem to be uploading right now or I would show you an example.
Upvote
0
Something wrong with the site not uploading - I just deleted a post because it would be incomplete. I did some comparative tests yesterday that I will report of a grey target and I'd like to be able to compare the results with birds. Thanks for posting these gorgeous shots. We in the Olde Worlde don't have hummers.
Upvote
0
We are fortunate to have year-round hummers and more than happy to share. They are funny little creatures. When their bottles start to get low (they monitor the level) they come round to the kitchen window to remind my wife that she needs to fill the feeders. Richard noted last night that the site was having uploading problems and that Craig is off in an arctic yurt somewhere so it may be a while before it gets fixed.
Upvote
0
Ok. Looks like I can upload photos again.
So...I've now had the RF 200-800 for 2 days of shooting. But, here are some photos from day 1. All of these were taken at my backyard bird feeder. I tried to do a trip to shoot eagles, but the river had iced over and the eagles had moved on.
As for impressions (all on R5 with latest firmware)....this is a good, maybe even a very good lens. It is interesting to hear people talk about how big and heavy it is. I guess it is a matter of perspective, I am amazed at how light and handholdable it is for what it is (800 mm). A joy in that department. I really like the focal length range. I am getting a number of good, usable images and can absolutely see this being many photographers primary/only telephoto lens.
Before I start with the not so good impressions, I must admit, I had lower light conditions on Saturday (cloud cover with winter storm moving in) and Sunday (snow storm). But the AF has been a bit inconsistent and while it is producing good usable shots, when I pixel peep, there are very few absolutely tack sharp images. There are good, even very good, but tack sharp eye detail was only present in a handful of images. And those were mostly when the sun popped through the clouds on Saturday. The AF seems to be having some trouble keeping up with subtle movements of the birds under lower light. It would bounce from on eye to on body more often than I am used too (and set to eye-AF animal, servo mode). The 200-800 would also loose focus often and hit rate was getting low. To test, I did use this side by side with my EF 500 II +1.4tc which gave me the usual of dead on AF, tack sharp images on the eyes, and back up to 9+/10 usable/very sharp images. Then I even pulled out my Simga 150-600S (haven't used in years, really should sell). I was pleased with how well the Sigma did actually. But I would say the 200-800 is on par or slightly better.
Sun is shining today. I'll do a few more tests and even get the EF 100-400 II w/1.4xtc out to compare. But, I think this may be pretty close to my final conclusion....there has been a breed of very good super-telephoto zooms (out to 600 mm) on the market starting by Sigma, but the big brands have caught up. Typically these are in the $1,000 to $2,000 price range. Many great images have been taken with these lenses and many more will be. Canon has now released a really good lens that may even be a leader in that category.
So, great! This will end up in many kits. I can see myself recommending this to many people. This is a good to very good lens. But, does it fit in a kit of someone that already has a EF 100-400 II and EF 500 II? Maybe. I'll see how it does under sunny conditions.
So...I've now had the RF 200-800 for 2 days of shooting. But, here are some photos from day 1. All of these were taken at my backyard bird feeder. I tried to do a trip to shoot eagles, but the river had iced over and the eagles had moved on.
As for impressions (all on R5 with latest firmware)....this is a good, maybe even a very good lens. It is interesting to hear people talk about how big and heavy it is. I guess it is a matter of perspective, I am amazed at how light and handholdable it is for what it is (800 mm). A joy in that department. I really like the focal length range. I am getting a number of good, usable images and can absolutely see this being many photographers primary/only telephoto lens.
Before I start with the not so good impressions, I must admit, I had lower light conditions on Saturday (cloud cover with winter storm moving in) and Sunday (snow storm). But the AF has been a bit inconsistent and while it is producing good usable shots, when I pixel peep, there are very few absolutely tack sharp images. There are good, even very good, but tack sharp eye detail was only present in a handful of images. And those were mostly when the sun popped through the clouds on Saturday. The AF seems to be having some trouble keeping up with subtle movements of the birds under lower light. It would bounce from on eye to on body more often than I am used too (and set to eye-AF animal, servo mode). The 200-800 would also loose focus often and hit rate was getting low. To test, I did use this side by side with my EF 500 II +1.4tc which gave me the usual of dead on AF, tack sharp images on the eyes, and back up to 9+/10 usable/very sharp images. Then I even pulled out my Simga 150-600S (haven't used in years, really should sell). I was pleased with how well the Sigma did actually. But I would say the 200-800 is on par or slightly better.
Sun is shining today. I'll do a few more tests and even get the EF 100-400 II w/1.4xtc out to compare. But, I think this may be pretty close to my final conclusion....there has been a breed of very good super-telephoto zooms (out to 600 mm) on the market starting by Sigma, but the big brands have caught up. Typically these are in the $1,000 to $2,000 price range. Many great images have been taken with these lenses and many more will be. Canon has now released a really good lens that may even be a leader in that category.
So, great! This will end up in many kits. I can see myself recommending this to many people. This is a good to very good lens. But, does it fit in a kit of someone that already has a EF 100-400 II and EF 500 II? Maybe. I'll see how it does under sunny conditions.
Attachments
Upvote
0
There seems to be enough interest, I thought I'd share this part of my evaluation of the RF 200-800.
Limited to my backyard set up that consists of my feeder with a stand that are about 30 ft away from my office window. The Juncos have been hitting my feeder a lot lately, so using the R5 I took out the 200-800, Sigma 150-600S, EF 100-400 w/1.4tc, EF 500 II, and EF 500 II w/ 1.4tc. I took about 40-60 shots with each set up within about 25 mins. The settings were 1/1000, f/8 or f/9, and ISO 1000. These are unprocessed images scaled in LR to 1500x1000. Eye-AF set to animal in servo was used.
Cropping in for some Junco headshots:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F) (bonus)
The key:
A: RF 200-800 (maybe focused just in front of the eye, but I saw this several times)
B: EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc
C: EF 500 II
D: Sigma 150-600 Sport
E: EF 500 II w 1.4tc
F: RF 200-800...I like this one a lot.
I am impressed. I still prefer the 500 II w/1.4tc, but the RF 200-800 was close enough I am very impressed.
But...at least for this one guy on one afternoon with a bunch of lenses and a camera, this test also elucidated key difference. Hit rate.
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%cool
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
So, pretty good light, and the RF 200-800 was most prone to lose focus. Checking on the conditions Sunday, it was EV 11 during the snowstorm and I still got good images, but the AF did struggle.
Had the RF 200-800 been available when I was upgrading into the super-telephoto range...it would have been my first super telephoto lens. I can easily recommend it. The IQ is great. But if AF/hit rate is critical, just be aware that is where this lens struggles especially in lower light.
I am still going through images from the storm, but I did like this one (taken with RF 200-800):
Limited to my backyard set up that consists of my feeder with a stand that are about 30 ft away from my office window. The Juncos have been hitting my feeder a lot lately, so using the R5 I took out the 200-800, Sigma 150-600S, EF 100-400 w/1.4tc, EF 500 II, and EF 500 II w/ 1.4tc. I took about 40-60 shots with each set up within about 25 mins. The settings were 1/1000, f/8 or f/9, and ISO 1000. These are unprocessed images scaled in LR to 1500x1000. Eye-AF set to animal in servo was used.
Cropping in for some Junco headshots:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F) (bonus)
The key:
A: RF 200-800 (maybe focused just in front of the eye, but I saw this several times)
B: EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc
C: EF 500 II
D: Sigma 150-600 Sport
E: EF 500 II w 1.4tc
F: RF 200-800...I like this one a lot.
I am impressed. I still prefer the 500 II w/1.4tc, but the RF 200-800 was close enough I am very impressed.
But...at least for this one guy on one afternoon with a bunch of lenses and a camera, this test also elucidated key difference. Hit rate.
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
coolEF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
So, pretty good light, and the RF 200-800 was most prone to lose focus. Checking on the conditions Sunday, it was EV 11 during the snowstorm and I still got good images, but the AF did struggle.
Had the RF 200-800 been available when I was upgrading into the super-telephoto range...it would have been my first super telephoto lens. I can easily recommend it. The IQ is great. But if AF/hit rate is critical, just be aware that is where this lens struggles especially in lower light.
I am still going through images from the storm, but I did like this one (taken with RF 200-800):
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks doc, keep posting.There seems to be enough interest, I thought I'd share this part of my evaluation of the RF 200-800.
Limited to my backyard set up that consists of my feeder with a stand that are about 30 ft away from my office window. The Juncos have been hitting my feeder a lot lately, so using the R5 I took out the 200-800, Sigma 150-600S, EF 100-400 w/1.4tc, EF 500 II, and EF 500 II w/ 1.4tc. I took about 40-60 shots with each set up within about 25 mins. The settings were 1/1000, f/8 or f/9, and ISO 1000. These are unprocessed images scaled in LR to 1500x1000. Eye-AF set to animal in servo was used.
Cropping in for some Junco headshots:
A)
View attachment 214062
B)
View attachment 214063
C)
View attachment 214064
D)
View attachment 214065
E)
View attachment 214066
F) (bonus)
View attachment 214067
The key:
A: RF 200-800 (maybe focused just in front of the eye, but I saw this several times)
B: EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc
C: EF 500 II
D: Sigma 150-600 Sport
E: EF 500 II w 1.4tc
F: RF 200-800...I like this one a lot.
I am impressed. I still prefer the 500 II w/1.4tc, but the RF 200-800 was close enough I am very impressed.
But...at least for this one guy on one afternoon with a bunch of lenses and a camera, this test also elucidated key difference. Hit rate.
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":
Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100%
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%
So, pretty good light, and the RF 200-800 was most prone to lose focus. Checking on the conditions Sunday, it was EV 11 during the snowstorm and I still got good images, but the AF did struggle.
Had the RF 200-800 been available when I was upgrading into the super-telephoto range...it would have been my first super telephoto lens. I can easily recommend it. The IQ is great. But if AF/hit rate is critical, just be aware that is where this lens struggles especially in lower light.
I am still going through images from the storm, but I did like this one (taken with RF 200-800):
View attachment 214072
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 4 staff post(s)
